5 ms·

> Section 5.1 of the PDF seems to imply that the "Initial Europe Doses" are to be manufactured within Europe [0] "following EU marketing authorization". You ar

by brmgb 6y ago

> Section 5.1 of the PDF seems to imply that the "Initial Europe Doses" are to be manufactured within Europe [0] "following EU marketing authorization". You are completely misreading it. That's not at all what section 5.1 implies. Section 5.1 says AstraZeneca should make its best effort to manufacture in the EU after market approval. That's in opposition to improving and relying on foreign production something expressly permitted by the contract. That has no bearing on where the dose should come now. > Section 5.4 which you quote from That's the section about where the dose can come and point that all AstraZeneca production capacity are part of agreement. But the real sinker for AstraZeneca is section 13.1.e. "[AstraZeneca represents, warrants and covenants to the Commission and the Participating Member States that: ] it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;" At this point, it is clear that AstraZeneca is trying to weasle out of its contractual obligation (unsurprisingly they are a pharma company after all). Short of an agreement being found and considering the EU doesn't have the time for a protractor trial, I think mandatory licensing or nationalisation of the production facilities are in order. But then again, this commission seems extremely weak so who knows.

lhnz 6y ago
> You are completely misreading it. That's not at all > what section 5.1 implies. What I wrote is a composite of a number of lawyer's comments on Twitter (e.g. https://twitter.com/FKeuleneer/status/1355138055305388036 https://twitter.com/FKeuleneer/status/1355138055305388036, https://twitter.com/BarristersHorse/status/1355286489811320832 https://twitter.com/BarristersHorse/status/13552864898113208..., https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo/status/1355486990150627329 https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo/status/1355486990150627329, and https://twitter.com/SBarrettBar/status/1355166944786264064 https://twitter.com/SBarrettBar/status/1355166944786264064). Do you have expertise that suggests that they are misreading? Searching around on Twitter, I've not yet been able to find legal opinions that say the Commission is in the right. Since you are apparently french, what are legal experts saying there? Perhaps they see it differently. Can you show me these opinions? > But the real sinker for AstraZeneca is section 13.1.e. > > "[AstraZeneca represents, warrants and covenants to > the Commission and the Participating Member States > that: ] it is not under any obligation, contractual > or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect > of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or > is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms > of this Agreement or that would impede the complete > fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;" It seems likely to me that (when taken in context of the rest of the contract) this actually proves the opposite of what you're saying. The most bullet-proof way that AstraZeneca could comply with this section is by segregating production of vaccines by country. There can be no conflicts between countries if vaccine allocations of initial doses are from separate factories. (I think the EU reading this as saying "there is no contract between AstraZeneca and the UK" is absolutely nonsensical since the UK's purchase order was widely publicised way before the EU signed.) Even if they're not letting on, I think it's likely that the Commission understands that they have a different allocation. Their actions show this -- they recently raided AstraZeneca's Belgian Vaccine Plant in an attempt to evidence the claim that AstraZeneca gave away EU doses to the UK. If AZ did this, that would have been an actual breach of 13.1.e of the contract.
- brmgb 6y ago
  > What I wrote is a composite of a number of lawyer's comments on Twitter A moment there I was worried my reading comprehension was failing me, thankfully none of the link you posted so authoritatively talk about section 5. They are mostly about down payments. Stop pretending you are posting a summary of things when you are talking about something else. > It seems likely to me that (when taken in context of the rest of the contract) this actually proves the opposite of what you're saying. The most bullet-proof way that AstraZeneca could comply with this section is by segregating production of vaccines by country. And what seems likely to you would be wrong. The contract says the opposite of what you are writing. > I think the EU reading this as saying "there is no contract between AstraZeneca and the UK" is absolutely nonsensical since the UK's purchase order was widely publicised way before the EU signed The EU experts wrote the contract. They don't have reading comprehension issue. AstraZeneca signed that their contract with the UK didn't contain conflicting obligations. > AstraZeneca gave away EU doses to the UK There are no EU doses and UK doses. AstraZeneca is manufacturing doses from different plants and has contractual obligations with multiple clients. The EU thinks their deliveries were mismanaged.
  - lhnz 6y ago
    > A moment there I was worried my reading comprehension was failing me, thankfully none of the link you posted so authoritatively talk about section 5. Everybody I posted has spoken about Section 5. Additionally at least one spoke about it in a link I posted. Your reading comprehension is failing you. > The EU experts wrote the contract. Interesting if true, but please source. I heard that it was Belgian Law. > There are no EU doses and UK doses. As I said, this is not what I've read.
    - lhnz 6y ago
      See also: https://twitter.com/ShipBrief/status/1355134952405397508 https://twitter.com/ShipBrief/status/1355134952405397508
    - brmgb 6y ago
      > I heard that it was Belgian Law. In case you didn't notice, Belgium is part of the EU. The EU is not a jurisdiction for contract law. The contract will obviously have to rely on the law of one of the EU member state, here Belgium as it's where the comission is located. > Interesting if true, but please source. I heard that it was Belgian Law. EU commercial contracts are all drafted by EU civil servants i.e. EU experts. How do you think the EU works (apparently you don't have much idea)?

by brmgb 6y ago

lhnz 6y ago

> You are completely misreading it. That's not at all > what section 5.1 implies. What I wrote is a composite of a number of lawyer's comments on Twitter (e.g. https://twitter.com/FKeuleneer/status/1355138055305388036 https://twitter.com/FKeuleneer/status/1355138055305388036, https://twitter.com/BarristersHorse/status/1355286489811320832 https://twitter.com/BarristersHorse/status/13552864898113208..., https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo/status/1355486990150627329 https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo/status/1355486990150627329, and https://twitter.com/SBarrettBar/status/1355166944786264064 https://twitter.com/SBarrettBar/status/1355166944786264064). Do you have expertise that suggests that they are misreading? Searching around on Twitter, I've not yet been able to find legal opinions that say the Commission is in the right. Since you are apparently french, what are legal experts saying there? Perhaps they see it differently. Can you show me these opinions? > But the real sinker for AstraZeneca is section 13.1.e. > > "[AstraZeneca represents, warrants and covenants to > the Commission and the Participating Member States > that: ] it is not under any obligation, contractual > or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect > of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or > is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms > of this Agreement or that would impede the complete > fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;" It seems likely to me that (when taken in context of the rest of the contract) this actually proves the opposite of what you're saying. The most bullet-proof way that AstraZeneca could comply with this section is by segregating production of vaccines by country. There can be no conflicts between countries if vaccine allocations of initial doses are from separate factories. (I think the EU reading this as saying "there is no contract between AstraZeneca and the UK" is absolutely nonsensical since the UK's purchase order was widely publicised way before the EU signed.) Even if they're not letting on, I think it's likely that the Commission understands that they have a different allocation. Their actions show this -- they recently raided AstraZeneca's Belgian Vaccine Plant in an attempt to evidence the claim that AstraZeneca gave away EU doses to the UK. If AZ did this, that would have been an actual breach of 13.1.e of the contract.

brmgb 6y ago
> What I wrote is a composite of a number of lawyer's comments on Twitter A moment there I was worried my reading comprehension was failing me, thankfully none of the link you posted so authoritatively talk about section 5. They are mostly about down payments. Stop pretending you are posting a summary of things when you are talking about something else. > It seems likely to me that (when taken in context of the rest of the contract) this actually proves the opposite of what you're saying. The most bullet-proof way that AstraZeneca could comply with this section is by segregating production of vaccines by country. And what seems likely to you would be wrong. The contract says the opposite of what you are writing. > I think the EU reading this as saying "there is no contract between AstraZeneca and the UK" is absolutely nonsensical since the UK's purchase order was widely publicised way before the EU signed The EU experts wrote the contract. They don't have reading comprehension issue. AstraZeneca signed that their contract with the UK didn't contain conflicting obligations. > AstraZeneca gave away EU doses to the UK There are no EU doses and UK doses. AstraZeneca is manufacturing doses from different plants and has contractual obligations with multiple clients. The EU thinks their deliveries were mismanaged.
- lhnz 6y ago
  > A moment there I was worried my reading comprehension was failing me, thankfully none of the link you posted so authoritatively talk about section 5. Everybody I posted has spoken about Section 5. Additionally at least one spoke about it in a link I posted. Your reading comprehension is failing you. > The EU experts wrote the contract. Interesting if true, but please source. I heard that it was Belgian Law. > There are no EU doses and UK doses. As I said, this is not what I've read.
  - lhnz 6y ago
    See also: https://twitter.com/ShipBrief/status/1355134952405397508 https://twitter.com/ShipBrief/status/1355134952405397508
  - brmgb 6y ago
    > I heard that it was Belgian Law. In case you didn't notice, Belgium is part of the EU. The EU is not a jurisdiction for contract law. The contract will obviously have to rely on the law of one of the EU member state, here Belgium as it's where the comission is located. > Interesting if true, but please source. I heard that it was Belgian Law. EU commercial contracts are all drafted by EU civil servants i.e. EU experts. How do you think the EU works (apparently you don't have much idea)?